Retrieve details for a Telegram business connection by connection ID to inspect its status and configuration.
Get information about a business connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_connection_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as return format, potential errors, or authentication requirements, leaving the agent without crucial operational information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly a tautology, so it is not as valuable as a concise, information-dense description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) but the description does not mention that this is a read operation returning a BusinessConnection object, nor does it explain what a business connection is. With no output schema and minimal context, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the business_connection_id parameter, its format, or how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a business connection' essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'get' tools like get_business_account_gifts or get_chat, and the concept of 'business connection' remains undefined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to alternative tools. There is no mention of its role within the broader Telegram Bot API business connection workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.